Tag Archives: FSF

[$] A successful defense against a copyright troll

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/752485/rss

At the 2018 Legal and
Licensing Workshop
(LLW), which is a yearly gathering
of lawyers and technical folks organized by the Free Software Foundation
Europe (FSFE), attendees got more details on a recent hearing in a German GPL
enforcement case. Marcus von Welser is a lawyer who represented the
defendant, Geniatech,
in a case that was brought by Patrick
McHardy
. In the presentation, von
Welser was joined by
Armijn Hemel, who helped
Geniatech in its compliance efforts. The hearing
was of interest for a number of reasons, not least because McHardy
withdrew his request for an injunction once it became clear that the judge
was leaning in
favor of the defendants
—effectively stopping this case dead in its tracks.

Public Lab and Karen Sandler are 2017 Free Software Awards winners

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/750153/rss

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) announced
the winners of the 2017 Free Software Awards during LibrePlanet.
Public Lab is a community and non-profit organization with the goal
of democratizing science to address environmental issues. Their
community-created tools and techniques utilize free software and low-cost
devices to enable people at any level of technical skill to investigate
environmental concerns.
” The organization received the Award for
Projects of Social Benefit. Karen Sandler, the Executive Director of the
Software Freedom Conservancy, received the Award for the Advancement of
Free Software.

Supporting Conservancy Makes a Difference

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2017/12/31/donate-conservancy.html

Earlier this year, in
February, I wrote a blog post encouraging people to donate
to where I
work, Software Freedom Conservancy. I’ve not otherwise blogged too much
this year. It’s been a rough year for many reasons, and while I
personally and Conservancy in general have accomplished some very
important work this year, I’m reminded as always that more resources do
make things easier.

I understand the urge, given how bad the larger political crises have
gotten, to want to give to charities other than those related to software
freedom. There are important causes out there that have become more urgent
this year. Here’s three issues which have become shockingly more acute
this year:

  • making sure the USA keeps it commitment
    to immigrants to allow them make a new life here just like my own ancestors
    did,
  • assuring that the great national nature reserves are maintained and
    left pristine for generations to come,
  • assuring that we have zero tolerance abusive behavior —
    particularly by those in power against people who come to them for help and
    job opportunities.

These are just three of the many issues this year that I’ve seen get worse,
not better. I am glad that I know and support people who work on these
issues, and I urge everyone to work on these issues, too.

Nevertheless, as I plan my primary donations this year, I’m again, as I
always do, giving to the FSF and my
own employer, Software
Freedom Conservancy
. The reason is simple: software freedom is still
an essential cause and it is frankly one that most people don’t understand
(yet). I wrote almost
two years ago about the phenomenon I dubbed Kuhn’s
Paradox
. Simply put: it keeps getting more and more difficult
to avoid proprietary software in a normal day’s tasks, even while the
number of lines of code licensed freely gets larger every day.

As long as that paradox remains true, I see software freedom as urgent. I
know that we’re losing ground on so many other causes, too. But those of
you who read my blog are some of the few people in the world that
understand that software freedom is under threat and needs the urgent work
that the very few software-freedom-related organizations,
like the FSF
and Software Freedom
Conservancy
are doing. I hope you’ll donate now to both of them. For
my part, I gave $120 myself to FSF as part of the monthly Associate
Membership program, and in a few minutes, I’m going to give $400 to
Conservancy. I’ll be frank: if you work in technology in an industrialized
country, I’m quite sure you can afford that level of money, and I suspect
those amounts are less than most of you spent on technology equipment
and/or network connectivity charges this year. Make a difference for us
and give to the cause of software freedom at least as much a you’re giving
to large technology companies.

Finally, a good reason to give to smaller charities like FSF and
Conservancy is that your donation makes a bigger difference. I do think
bigger organizations, such as (to pick an example of an organization I used
to give to) my local NPR station does important work. However, I was
listening this week to my local NPR station, and they said their goal
for that day was to raise $50,000. For Conservancy, that’s closer
to a goal we have for entire fundraising season, which for this year was
$75,000. The thing is: NPR is an important part of USA society, but it’s
one that nearly everyone understands. So few people understand the threats
looming from proprietary software, and they may not understand at all until
it’s too late — when all their devices are locked down, DRM is
fully ubiquitous, and no one is allowed to tinker with the software on
their devices and learn the wonderful art of computer programming. We are
at real risk of reaching that distopia before 90% of the world’s
population understands the threat!

Thus, giving to organizations in the area of software freedom is just
going to have a bigger and more immediate impact than more general causes
that more easily connect with people. You’re giving to prevent a future
that not everyone understands yet, and making an impact on our
work to help explain the dangers to the larger population.

FSF adds PureOS to list of endorsed GNU/Linux distributions

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/742152/rss

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has announced that it added PureOS to its list of endorsed Linux distributions. “‘PureOS is a GNU operating system that embodies privacy, security, and convenience strictly with free software throughout. Working with the Free Software Foundation in this multi-year endorsement effort solidifies our longstanding belief that free software is the nucleus for all things ethical for users. Using PureOS ensures you are using an ethical operating system, committed to providing the best in privacy, security, and freedom,’ said Todd Weaver, Founder & CEO of Purism.

When should behaviour outside a community have consequences inside it?

Post Syndicated from Matthew Garrett original https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/50099.html

Free software communities don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re made up of people who are also members of other communities, people who have other interests and engage in other activities. Sometimes these people engage in behaviour outside the community that may be perceived as negatively impacting communities that they’re a part of, but most communities have no guidelines for determining whether behaviour outside the community should have any consequences within the community. This post isn’t an attempt to provide those guidelines, but aims to provide some things that community leaders should think about when the issue is raised.

Some things to consider

Did the behaviour violate the law?

This seems like an obvious bar, but it turns out to be a pretty bad one. For a start, many things that are common accepted behaviour in various communities may be illegal (eg, reverse engineering work may contravene a strict reading of US copyright law), and taking this to an extreme would result in expelling anyone who’s ever broken a speed limit. On the flipside, refusing to act unless someone broke the law is also a bad threshold – much behaviour that communities consider unacceptable may be entirely legal.

There’s also the problem of determining whether a law was actually broken. The criminal justice system is (correctly) biased to an extent in favour of the defendant – removing someone’s rights in society should require meeting a high burden of proof. However, this is not the threshold that most communities hold themselves to in determining whether to continue permitting an individual to associate with them. An incident that does not result in a finding of criminal guilt (either through an explicit finding or a failure to prosecute the case in the first place) should not be ignored by communities for that reason.

Did the behaviour violate your community norms?

There’s plenty of behaviour that may be acceptable within other segments of society but unacceptable within your community (eg, lobbying for the use of proprietary software is considered entirely reasonable in most places, but rather less so at an FSF event). If someone can be trusted to segregate their behaviour appropriately then this may not be a problem, but that’s probably not sufficient in all cases. For instance, if someone acts entirely reasonably within your community but engages in lengthy anti-semitic screeds on 4chan, it’s legitimate to question whether permitting them to continue being part of your community serves your community’s best interests.

Did the behaviour violate the norms of the community in which it occurred?

Of course, the converse is also true – there’s behaviour that may be acceptable within your community but unacceptable in another community. It’s easy to write off someone acting in a way that contravenes the standards of another community but wouldn’t violate your expected behavioural standards – after all, if it wouldn’t breach your standards, what grounds do you have for taking action?

But you need to consider that if someone consciously contravenes the behavioural standards of a community they’ve chosen to participate in, they may be willing to do the same in your community. If pushing boundaries is a frequent trait then it may not be too long until you discover that they’re also pushing your boundaries.

Why do you care?

A community’s code of conduct can be looked at in two ways – as a list of behaviours that will be punished if they occur, or as a list of behaviours that are unlikely to occur within that community. The former is probably the primary consideration when a community adopts a CoC, but the latter is how many people considering joining a community will think about it.

If your community includes individuals that are known to have engaged in behaviour that would violate your community standards, potential members or contributors may not trust that your CoC will function as adequate protection. A community that contains people known to have engaged in sexual harassment in other settings is unlikely to be seen as hugely welcoming, even if they haven’t (as far as you know!) done so within your community. The way your members behave outside your community is going to be seen as saying something about your community, and that needs to be taken into account.

A second (and perhaps less obvious) aspect is that membership of some higher profile communities may be seen as lending general legitimacy to someone, and they may play off that to legitimise behaviour or views that would be seen as abhorrent by the community as a whole. If someone’s anti-semitic views (for example) are seen as having more relevance because of their membership of your community, it’s reasonable to think about whether keeping them in your community serves the best interests of your community.

Conclusion

I’ve said things like “considered” or “taken into account” a bunch here, and that’s for a good reason – I don’t know what the thresholds should be for any of these things, and there doesn’t seem to be even a rough consensus in the wider community. We’ve seen cases in which communities have acted based on behaviour outside their community (eg, Debian removing Jacob Appelbaum after it was revealed that he’d sexually assaulted multiple people), but there’s been no real effort to build a meaningful decision making framework around that.

As a result, communities struggle to make consistent decisions. It’s unreasonable to expect individual communities to solve these problems on their own, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore them. It’s time to start coming up with a real set of best practices.

comment count unavailable comments

Eben Moglen is no longer a friend of the free software community

Post Syndicated from Matthew Garrett original https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/49370.html

(Note: While the majority of the events described below occurred while I was a member of the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation, I am no longer. This is my personal position and should not be interpreted as the opinion of any other organisation or company I have been affiliated with in any way)

Eben Moglen has done an amazing amount of work for the free software community, serving on the board of the Free Software Foundation and acting as its general counsel for many years, leading the drafting of GPLv3 and giving many forceful speeches on the importance of free software. However, his recent behaviour demonstrates that he is no longer willing to work with other members of the community, and we should reciprocate that.

In early 2016, the FSF board became aware that Eben was briefing clients on an interpretation of the GPL that was incompatible with that held by the FSF. He later released this position publicly with little coordination with the FSF, which was used by Canonical to justify their shipping ZFS in a GPL-violating way. He had provided similar advice to Debian, who were confused about the apparent conflict between the FSF’s position and Eben’s.

This situation was obviously problematic – Eben is clearly free to provide whatever legal opinion he holds to his clients, but his very public association with the FSF caused many people to assume that these positions were held by the FSF and the FSF were forced into the position of publicly stating that they disagreed with legal positions held by their general counsel. Attempts to mediate this failed, and Eben refused to commit to working with the FSF on avoiding this sort of situation in future[1].

Around the same time, Eben made legal threats towards another project with ties to FSF. These threats were based on a license interpretation that ran contrary to how free software licenses had been interpreted by the community for decades, and was made without any prior discussion with the FSF. This, in conjunction with his behaviour over the ZFS issue, led to him stepping down as the FSF’s general counsel.

Throughout this period, Eben disparaged FSF staff and other free software community members in various semi-public settings. In doing so he harmed the credibility of many people who have devoted significant portions of their lives to aiding the free software community. At Libreplanet earlier this year he made direct threats against an attendee – this was reported as a violation of the conference’s anti-harassment policy.

Eben has acted against the best interests of an organisation he publicly represented. He has threatened organisations and individuals who work to further free software. His actions are no longer to the benefit of the free software community and the free software community should cease associating with him.

[1] Contrary to the claim provided here, Bradley was not involved in this process.

comment count unavailable comments

FSFE makes copyrights computer readable

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/738475/rss

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) has released the
next version of its REUSE practices,
designed to make computers understand software copyrights and licenses.
The REUSE practices help software developers make simple additions to license headers which make it easier for a computer to determine what license applies to the various parts of a programs source code. By following the REUSE practices, software developers can ensure their intent to license software under a particular license is understood and more readily adhered to.

[$] The rise and fall of Limux

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/737818/rss

The LiMux (or Limux)
initiative in Munich has been heralded as an example of both the good and
bad in moving a public administration away from proprietary systems. Free
Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) President Matthias Kirschner reviewed the
history of the initiative—and its recent apparent downfall—in a talk at
Open Source Summit Europe in Prague. He also looked at the broader
implications of the project as well as asking some questions that
free-software advocates should consider moving forward.

FSFE: Public Money? Public Code!

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/733604/rss

The Free Software Foundation Europe has joined several
organizations
in publishing an open letter urging lawmakers
to advance legislation requiring publicly financed software developed for
the public sector be made available under a Free and Open Source Software
license. “The initial signatories include CCC, EDRi, Free Software
Foundation Europe, KDE, Open Knowledge Foundation Germany, openSUSE, Open
Source Business Alliance, Open Source Initiative, The Document Foundation,
Wikimedia Deutschland, as well as several others; they ask individuals and
other organisation to sign the open letter. The open letter will be sent to candidates for the German Parliament election and, during the coming months, until the 2019 EU parliament elections, to other representatives of the EU and EU member states.

[$] The supposed decline of copyleft

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/731722/rss

At DebConf17, John Sullivan, the executive director of the FSF,
gave a talk on the supposed decline of the use of
copyleft licenses in free-software projects. In his presentation, Sullivan
questioned the notion that permissive licenses, like the BSD or MIT
licenses, are gaining ground at the expense of the traditionally dominant
copyleft licenses from the FSF. While there does seem to be a rise in
the use of permissive licenses, in general, there are several possible
explanations for
the phenomenon.

Kuhn: Goodbye To Bob Chassell

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/727133/rss

On his blog, Bradley Kuhn remembers Bob Chassell, who was an early contributor to free software, after his passing in early July. “I regularly credit Bob as the first Executive Director of the FSF. While he technically never held that title, he served as Treasurer for many years and was the de-facto non-technical manager at the FSF for its first decade of existence. One need only read the earliest issues of the GNU’s Bulletin to see just a sampling of the plethora of contributions that Bob made to the FSF and Free Software generally.

Bob’s primary forte was as a writer and he came to Free Software as a technical writer. Having focused his career on documenting software and how it worked to help users make the most of it, software freedom — the right to improve and modify not only the software, but its documentation as well — was a moral belief that he held strongly. Bob was an early member of the privileged group that now encompasses most people in industrialized society: a non-developer who sees the value in computing and the improvement it can bring to life. However, Bob’s realization that users like him (and not just developers) faced detrimental impact from proprietary software remains somewhat rare, even today. Thus, Bob died in a world where he was still unique among non-developers: fighting for software freedom as an essential right for all who use computers.”

Goodbye To Bob Chassell

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2017/07/03/Chassell.html

It’s fortunately more common now in Free Software communities today to
properly value contributions from non-developers. Historically, though,
contributions from developers were often overvalued and contributions from
others grossly undervalued. One person trailblazed as (likely) the
earliest non-developer contributor to software freedom. His name was
Robert J. Chassell — called Bob by his friends and colleagues. Over
the weekend, our community lost Bob after a long battle with a degenerative
illness.

I am one of the few of my generation in the Free Software community who
had the opportunity to know Bob. He was already semi-retired in the late
1990s when I first became involved with Free Software, but he enjoyed
giving talks about Free Software and occasionally worked the FSF booths at
events where I had begun to volunteer in 1997. He was the first person to
offer mentorship to me as I began the long road of becoming a professional
software freedom activist.

I regularly credit Bob as the first Executive Director of the FSF. While
he technically never held that title, he served as Treasurer for many years
and was the de-facto non-technical manager at the FSF for its first decade
of existence. One need only read
the earliest
issues of the GNU’s Bulletin
to see just a sampling of
the plethora of contributions that Bob made to the FSF and Free Software
generally.

Bob’s primary forte was as a writer and he came to Free Software as a
technical writer. Having focused his career on documenting software and how
it worked to help users make the most of it, software freedom — the
right to improve and modify not only the software, but its documentation as
well — was a moral belief that he held strongly. Bob was an early
member of the privileged group that now encompasses most people in
industrialized society: a non-developer who sees the value in computing and
the improvement it can bring to life. However, Bob’s realization that users
like him (and not just developers) faced detrimental impact from proprietary
software remains somewhat rare, even today. Thus, Bob died in a world where
he was still unique among non-developers: fighting for software freedom as an
essential right for all who use computers.

Bob coined a phrase that I still love to this day. He said once that the
job that we must do as activists was “preserve, protect and promote
software freedom”. Only a skilled writer such as he could come up
with such a perfectly concise alliteration that nevertheless rolls off the
tongue without stuttering. Today, I pulled up an email I sent to Bob in
November 2006 to tell him that (when Novell made their bizarre
software-freedom-unfriendly patent deal with Microsoft)
Novell
had coopted his language in their FAQ on the matter
. Bob wrote
back: I am not surprised. You can bet everything [we’ve ever come up
with] will be used against us.
Bob’s decade-old words are prolific
when I look at the cooption we now face daily in Free Software. I acutely
feel the loss of his insight and thoughtfulness.

One of the saddest facts about Bob’s illness is that his voice was quite
literally lost many years before we lost him entirely. His illness made it
nearly impossible for him to speak. In the late 1990s, I had the pleasure
of regularly hearing Bob’s voice, when I accompanied Bob to talks and
speeches at various conferences. That included the wonderful highlight of
his acceptance speech of GNU’s 2001 achievement award from the USENIX
Association. (I lament that no recordings of any of these talks seem to
be available anywhere.) Throughout the early 2000s, I
would speak to Bob on the telephone at least once a month; he would offer
his sage advice and mentorship in those early years of my professional
software freedom career. Losing his voice in our community has been a
slow-moving tragedy as his illness has progressed. This weekend, that
unique voice was lost to us forever.


I found out we lost Bob through the folks at the FSF, and I don’t at this
time have information about his family’s wishes regarding tributes to him.
I’ll update the post when/if I have them.

In the meantime, the best I can suggest is that anyone who would like to
posthumously get to know Bob please read (what I believe was) the favorite
book that he
wrote, An
Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp
. Bob was a huge
advocate of non-developers learning “a little bit” of
programming — just enough to make their lives easier when they used
computers. He used GNU Emacs from its earliest versions and I recall he
was absolutely giddy to discover new features, help document them, and
teach them to new users. I hope those of you that both already love and
use Emacs and those who don’t will take a moment to read what Bob had to
teach us about his favorite program.

FSF: Judge won’t dismiss alleged GPL violation: Why this matters

Post Syndicated from ris original https://lwn.net/Articles/724720/rss

Last month LWN pointed to an article about
the Artifex v. Hancom case, in which Hancom used Atifex’s Ghostscript in
its office product. The Free Software Foundation looks at the case
and the recent ruling. “On the latter, the judge found that the
business model of Artifex indicated a loss of revenue, but also noted that
harm could be found
even where money isn’t involved. The judge, quoting a prior case,
noted that there are “substantial benefits, including economic
benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under
public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties.”
While not dispostive, this last note is particularly interesting for
many free software developers, who generally share their work at no
cost.

The Licensing and Compliance Lab interviews AJ Jordon of gplenforced.org (FSF Blog)

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/723828/rss

The Free Software Foundation’s blog is carrying an interview with AJ Jordon, who runs the gplenforced.org site to support GPL enforcement efforts and to help other projects indicate their support. “gplenforced.org is a small site I made that has exactly two purposes: host a badge suitable for embedding into a README file on GitLab or something, and provide some text with an easy and friendly explanation of GPL enforcement for that badge to link to.

Putting badges in READMEs has been pretty trendy for a while now — people add badges to indicate whether their test suite is passing, their dependencies are up-to-date, and what version is published in language package managers. gplenforced.org capitalizes on that trend to add the maintainer’s beliefs about license enforcement, too.”

[$] The rise of copyright trolls

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/721458/rss

At the 2017 Free
Software Legal and Licensing Workshop
(LLW), which was held April 26-28
in Barcelona, Spain, more information about the GPL enforcement efforts by Patrick McHardy
emerged. The workshop is organized by the Free Software Foundation Europe
(FSFE) and its legal
network
.
A panel discussion on the final day of the workshop discussed
McHardy’s methodology and outlined why those efforts are actually far from
the worst-case scenario of a copyright troll. While the Q&A portion of the
discussion was under Chatham House
Rule
(which was the default for the workshop), the discussion between
the three participants was not—it provided much more detail about McHardy’s efforts, and
copyright trolling in general, than has been previously available publicly.

Why GPL Compliance Education Materials Should Be Free as in Freedom

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2017/04/25/liberate-compliance-tutorials.html

[ This blog was crossposted
on Software Freedom Conservancy’s website
. ]

I am honored to be a co-author and editor-in-chief of the most
comprehensive, detailed, and complete guide on matters related to compliance
of copyleft software licenses such as the GPL.
This book, Copyleft and the GNU
General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial and Guide
(which we
often call the Copyleft Guide for short)
is 155 pages filled
with useful material to help everyone understand copyleft licenses for
software, how they work, and how to comply with them properly. It is the
only document to fully incorporate esoteric material such as the FSF’s famous
GPLv3 rationale documents directly alongside practical advice, such as
the pristine example,
which is the only freely published compliance analysis of a real product on
the market. The document explains in great detail how that product
manufacturer made good choices to comply with the GPL. The reader learns by
both real-world example as well as abstract explanation.

However, the most important fact about the Copyleft Guide is not its
useful and engaging content. More importantly, the license of this book
gives freedom to its readers in the same way the license of the copylefted
software does. Specifically, we chose
the Creative
Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 license

(CC BY-SA)
for this work. We believe that not just software, but any generally useful
technical information that teaches people should be freely sharable and
modifiable by the general public.

The reasons these freedoms are necessary seem so obvious that I’m
surprised I need to state them. Companies who want to build internal
training courses on copyleft compliance for their employees need to modify
the materials for that purpose. They then need to be able to freely
distribute them to employees and contractors for maximum effect.
Furthermore, like all documents and software alike, there are always
“bugs”, which (in the case of written prose) usually means
there are sections that are fail to communicate to maximum effect. Those
who find better ways to express the ideas need the ability to propose
patches and write improvements. Perhaps most importantly, everyone who
teaches should avoid
NIH syndrome. Education and
science work best when we borrow and share (with proper license-compliant
attribution, of course!) the best material that others develop, and augment
our works by incorporating them.

These reasons are akin to those that led Richard M. Stallman to write his
seminal
essay, Why
Software Should Be Free
. Indeed, if you reread that essay now
— as I just did — you’ll see that much of damage and many of
the same problems to the advancement of software that RMS documents in that
essay also occur in the world of tutorial documentation about FLOSS
licensing. As too often happens in the Open Source community, though,
folks seek ways to proprietarize, for profit, any copyrighted work that
doesn’t already have a copyleft license attached. In the field of copyleft
compliance education, we see the same behavior: organizations who wish to
control the dialogue and profit from selling compliance education seek to
proprietarize the meta-material of compliance education, rather than
sharing freely like the software itself. This yields an ironic
exploitation, since the copyleft license documented therein exists as a
strategy to assure the freedom to share knowledge. These educators tell
their audiences with a straight face: Sure, the software is
free as in freedom, but if you want to learn how its license
works, you have to license our proprietary materials!
This behavior
uses legal controls to curtail the sharing of knowledge, limits the
advancement and improvement of those tutorials, and emboldens silos of
know-how that only wealthy corporations have the resources to access and
afford. The educational dystopia that these organizations create is
precisely what I sought to prevent by advocating for software freedom for
so long.

While Conservancy’s primary job
provides non-profit infrastructure for Free
Software projects
, we also do a bit
of license compliance work as well.
But we practice what we preach: we release all the educational materials
that we produce as part of
the Copyleft Guide project
under CC BY-SA. Other Open Source organizations are currently hypocrites
on this point; they tout the values of openness and sharing of knowledge
through software, but they take their tutorial materials and lock them up
under proprietary licenses. I hereby publicly call on such organizations
(including but not limited to the Linux Foundation) to license
materials such
as
those under CC BY-SA.

I did not make this public call for liberation of such materials without
first trying friendly diplomacy first. Conservancy has been in talks with
individuals and staff who produce these materials for some time. We urged
them to join the Free Software community and share their materials under
free licenses. We even offered volunteer time to help them improve those
materials if they would simply license them freely. After two years of
that effort, it’s now abundantly clear that public pressure is the only
force that might work0. Ultimately, like all
proprietary businesses, the training divisions of Linux Foundation and
other entities in the compliance industrial complex (such
as Black Duck)
realize they can make much more revenue by making materials proprietary and
choosing legal restrictions that forbid their students from sharing and
improving the materials after they complete the course. While the reality
of this impasse regarding freely licensing these materials is probably an
obvious outcome, multiple sources inside these organizations have also
confirmed for me that liberation of the materials for the good of general
public won’t happen without a major paradigm shift — specifically
because such educational freedom will reduce the revenue stream around
those materials.

Of course, I can attest first-hand that freely liberating tutorial
materials curtails revenue. Karen Sandler and I have regularly taught
courses on copyleft licensing based
on the freely available materials
for a few years — most
recently in
January 2017 at LinuxConf Australia
and at
at
OSCON in a few weeks
. These conferences do kindly cover our travel
expenses to attend and teach the tutorial, but compliance education is not
a revenue stream for Conservancy. While, in an ideal world, we’d get
revenue from education to fund our other important activities, we believe
that there is value in doing this education as currently funded by
our individual Supporters; these education
efforts fit withour charitable mission to promote the public good. We
furthermore don’t believe that locking up the materials and refusing to
share them with others fits a mission of software freedom, so we never
considered such as a viable option. Finally, given the
institutionally-backed
FUD that we’ve
continue to witness, we seek to draw specific attention to the fundamental
difference in approach that Conservancy (as a charity) take toward this
compliance education work. (My
my recent talk on compliance
covered on LWN
includes some points on that matter, if you’d like
further reading).


0One notable exception to
these efforts was the success of my colleague, Karen Sandler (and others)
in convincing the OpenChain
project
to choose CC-0 licensing. However, OpenChain is not officially
part of the LF training curriculum to my knowledge, and if it is, it can of
course be proprietarized therein, since CC-0 is not a copyleft license.

LibrePlanet session videos released

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/718553/rss

Videos from the LibrePlanet 2017 keynotes and sessions are becoming available at media.libreplanet.org; many are already posted and others will be filled in over the next few days. “LibrePlanet 2017 closed Sunday, March 26th with a keynote by
Sumana Harihareswara, bringing to an end two days of
presentations, workshops, hacking, conversations, and fun. More
than 400 people interested in free software joined the Free
Software Foundation (FSF) and MIT’s Student Information Processing
Board (SIPB) in Cambridge, MA for the 9th annual LibrePlanet.
” LWN was there for the conference, so you can expect more coverage coming soon (our first article on Conor Schaefer’s SecureDrop talk appeared in the March 30 weekly edition).

FSFE: What happened in Munich

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/716174/rss

The Free Software Foundation Europe has put out a release providing its
view of the decision in Munich to possibly back away from its
free-software-based infrastructure.
Since this decision was reached, the majority of media have reported
that a final call was made to halt LiMux and switch back to Microsoft
software. This is, however, not an accurate representation of the
outcome of the city council meeting. We studied the available
documentation and our impression is that the last word has not been
spoken.